My own system - input needed

[Zireael]

http://treskri.wikidot.com/mechanika-dla-treskri

Everything done up until now. It's in Polish, but Google Translate does it's job well:
http://translate.google.com/translate?ie=UTF-8&sl=auto&tl=en&u=treskri.wikidot.com/mechanika-dla-treskri

English translation to come when it's finished (I don't have enough time to keep track of two language versions in development).Main features:
- use of d6
- point buy to determine attributes
- point buy to create character (somewhat like L5R)
- lack of levels
- saving throws as in D&D
- attributes as in D&D, but replaced by the modifiers (i.e +1 to +10 scale, medium is +3)
- Stamina Points representing the character's stamina
- action points instead of the minor/move/full-round
- body parts specified for damage as an optional rule
- 'advantages' bought for XP
- XP given by the DM as he wishes
- some of the more powerful 'advantages' require ranks (a certain number of XP has to be spent earlier)
- no criticals, no random damage dice
- no spell failure
- changed armor check penalties
- advancement paths for given classes
- completely remade skill list
- use for every attribute
- non-combat advantages exist
- tweaked item and equipment prices
- every class (fighter and magic-user to use the AD&D terminology) uses the same system
- every class has access to manevuers (a bit of a cross between Tome of Battle and 4e)
- using manevuers (whether they be spells or not) requires you to be in your deity's favor
- XP price for some potentially unbalancing spells (scry, teleport etc.)

Comments and/or input needed. I'm not scared of critique - quite contrary, I need it!

Thanks in advance,
Zireael

[Zireael]

I'm thinking of revisiting the idea of level titles when I have some time.

[Zireael]

Any ideas? Input? Do you want to see an example or something?

Is the GT-translated version readable?

[roguemetal]

Very interesting system. I like the mechanics, especially the divine grace principles. I might even suggest awarding additional points for succeding in goals or good roleplay. I also like that you gave crafting experience, and are using d6s with good balance.

In the basics I worry using 1/4 of anything can get a little tedious to calculate.

Under point buy, which side is the attribute and which is the point buy? They seem mixed up.

General issue with Stock rules. Dexterity becomes too important. It determines too many things in general. Use average of Dexterity, Endurance, and Perception maybe?

Also, yes, it is a bit hard to read, but mostly forgivable. I am used to reading translated svenska rpgs.

[Zireael]

I'm glad to hear that this is readable. I would have translated it if not for the fact that this is in development still and I have many other demands on my time (studies, work) so I simply do not have time.

I'll try to improve the point buy table ASAP.

A friend helped me to work out the balance for d6s, in the beginning it was a total mess.

Thank you for the kind comment!

[Zireael]

Any input? Comments? Ideas?

[Zireael]

Any obvious faults? Any people who would want to help?

[Zireael]

Okay, to put it simpler: what do you like and what do you dislike?

[Zireael]

I would like some P.E.A.C.H, even as simple as answering the question above.

[Grinner]

It's a fantasy heartbreaker. There's not a whole lot to say. :smallconfused:

I will say that the "roll a d20 to see how badly you die" rule seems a bit arbitrary and pointless.

Aside from that, you need to flesh out magic items and do some smoke testing. Also, I was impressed that you included a bestiary.

[Zireael]

I will say that the "roll a d20 to see how badly you die" rule seems a bit arbitrary and pointless.

You mean body location damage?

Yeah, I know magic items are missing, but:
a) I'm busy with uni
b) it's a low-magic world

[PairO'Dice Lost]

As Grinner said, this looks to be fairly similar to D&D on the whole with a bunch of subsystems and mechanics swapped out (d6 for d20, action points, etc.), so I'll assume things work like D&D unless otherwise noted.

In no particular order:

--What are the additional attributes used for? Reflexes would seem to make sense for AC and Endurance for holding your breath and such, but you use Dex and Con there, and unless the Dex-based skills in your game use Ref instead and Endurance replaces Con for exploration, I'm not seeing a real reason to have that split.

--Unless you're giving out lots of bonuses, the difficulty scale you're using won't work. A skill DC being "Almost Impossible" at DC 40+ works in D&D because a 20th level character gets on the order of +20ish from levels and +10ish from stats and miscellaneous modifiers so d20+30 gets you there around half the time, and "Easy" being 5-25 would work well because a starting character can hit that with good stats, a high roll, and some help.

With a d6 RNG, you'd have to have much higher number inflation than D&D does to hit Impossible, needing a +34 to even have a chance of hitting it, and Easy tasks are actually fairly difficult until you hit the mid levels...and of course the fact that the categories overlap means that GMs will find it more difficult to set DCs (what differentiates an Easy DC 20 task from a Medium DC 20 task?).

I'd change the DCs to be Easy 5-10, Medium 11-15, Tough 16-20, Challenging 21-25, Very Difficult 26-30, and Almost Impossible 31+. That still leaves the higher ratings out of reach for a while without requiring bonus inflation.

--Environment, Poison, Disease, and similar aren't really good starting points for mechanics; getting basic player character mechanics down first is more important, since they'll come up a lot more often. Also, how skills work can affect how those mechanics function--is there a Heal skill and how hard is it to heal poisons, can skills increase your breath-holding over your Con/End roll, etc.

Overall, this system looks like it could have some promise, being a simpler, looser version of D&D given its higher degree of GM control, simpler action system, and so forth...but you have a long way to go before it gets there. I'd suggest getting the basic uses for attributes down as well as the skill system, and then there will be more material for people to critique and help with.

[Zireael]

and of course the fact that the categories overlap means that GMs will find it more difficult to set DCs (what differentiates an Easy DC 20 task from a Medium DC 20 task?).

Yes, you're right, overlapping categories were a bad idea.


With a d6 RNG, you'd have to have much higher number inflation than D&D does to hit Impossible, needing a +34 to even have a chance of hitting it
Impossible is meant to be Impossible, and you might get as much as +10 from attribute and another +2 or +4 from advantage.


--What are the additional attributes used for? Reflexes would seem to make sense for AC and Endurance for holding your breath and such, but you use Dex and Con there, and unless the Dex-based skills in your game use Ref instead and Endurance replaces Con for exploration, I'm not seeing a real reason to have that split.
I'll fix AC to use Reflexes and exploration stuff (holding your breath and the like) to use Endurance.

Simply, after I borrowed additional attributes from L5R I ran out of time to work on this.


Overall, this system looks like it could have some promise, being a simpler, looser version of D&D given its higher degree of GM control, simpler action system, and so forth...but you have a long way to go before it gets there. I'd suggest getting the basic uses for attributes down as well as the skill system, and then there will be more material for people to critique and help with.

Thanks, I will try to fix some things over the next two weeks.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Impossible is meant to be Impossible, and you might get as much as +10 from attribute and another +2 or +4 from advantage.

If the most you can get is +14, there's no point in having any DC over 20, because you literally can't hit it. If DC 40 is meant to be "almost" impossible, you'd need +34 at least, otherwise DC 20 is "almost impossible" and DC 21+ is "impossible."

[Zireael]

... and we both missed the fact that skill levels give both a numberical bonus (+2, +4, +6, +8, +10) and an additional die. The most one can get is 5d6+10+10+2=5d6+22.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

... and we both missed the fact that skill levels give both a numberical bonus (+2, +4, +6, +8, +10) and an additional die. The most one can get is 5d6+10+10+2=5d6+22.

Aha. That certainly changes things. In that case, the overlap should still be changed by the numerical range for the DCs works out. The average result of 5d6+22 is 39, actually, so 40+ as nearly impossible is a pretty good choice.

[Zireael]

Yeah, I need to:
1) fix the attributes table so that it looks better
2) fix the overlapping DCs
3) stress the added dice so that people don't overlook it (if a creator can, it means it's really hidden out of the way :D)

[Zireael]

I fixed the point buy table and stressed the added dice for Skill tests. Also, AC now uses Reflex and various environment checks use Endurance.

I think since I added additional attributes, d20-derived saving throws are no longer necessary. Also, I think there should be more than 32 points for point buy, since there's more attributes.

I will get around to fixing DC overlap soonish.

The system is missing one major part - manevuers. I converted some spells, but did not really have time to work on their non-magic counterparts.

[Zireael]

Should I continue working on this or just wait for D&D Next to come out?

[Yakk]

Standard Heartbreaker issues -- you are probably better off with general rules, instead of lists of specific ones, because your lists won't be exhastive.

Lots of "half" stuff. 1.5 meters, 1/4 some modifier. Seems rough and useless.

Hiding / Miss table similarly over-details and fiddly.

Cover gives AC, Hiding gives miss chance -- why?

AP system means spreadsheet bitching each and every round to count AP. More decision points result, with less important decisions. Make decisions important.

Multiple defeat-o-meters, with random mechanics attached.

Useless adjectives -- what makes +10 divine other than the adjective? The mechanical effects don't seem godly. +7 on a skill check doesn't switch from "what any mortal could do" to "what I'd expect a god to do".

You mention D&D in the description, but don't mention which of the 8+ versions of D&D you are talking about. This, to me, indicates myopia -- you don't seem aware of the many myriad versions of D&D, but instead map "D&D" to one particular version you play.

System is haphazard, full of nearly random mechanics that don't tie together well, incomplete, poorly organized, difficult to read in translation, and generally a mediocre D&D clone.

Making a system is fun, but I'd work on smaller parts of systems rather than entire games at first. And do more playtesting, with the plan to discard 99 out of 100 designs.

[Zireael]

I don't mention the precise edition of D&D, because I draw a bit on 3.0 and a bit on 4 and a bit on AD&D...

Thanks for the input. So you think the rules are too fiddly and detailed?

I'm sorry, but a proper translation will not be coming, I do not simply have enough time.

[Zireael]

I dusted of my M&M 3ed. and it's remarkably similar. Maybe the reason I'm not getting feedback is that I've tried (unwittingly) to reinvent the wheel?